JAGRUTIBEN NIRAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), SURAT

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.67,00,000/-on account of Unexplained Investment u/s. 69B. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.36,40,000/- on account of variation in GLV with Purchase Consideration u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act under the head Income from Other Sources. 3. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Transport Services in the name of M/s Nirav Transport. For the Assessment Year 2020-21, the assessee filed her return of income on 12.01.2021, declaring total income of Rs.7,33,800/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) on 22.04.2021 and then selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) has noted that the assessee purchased a property for consideration of Rs.1 crore. On verification, it is found that payment of Rs.33,00,000/- only made by the assessee and remaining Rs.67,00,000/- was not paid. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued to the assessee and asked as to why the addition of Rs.67,00,000/- be made u/s 69B of the Act, treating the same as unexplained investment. The assessee partially complied with the notices and stated that due consideration was not paid since there are title clearance of the above property and the payment made to the seller after registration of salary. However, the above information was

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted that the registered Sale Deed carries the 19 cheque numbers of the transactions for the sum of Rs.1 crore, but without specific dates. After resolving the legal issue on the title of the property, balance same cheques were cleared to the buyers, hence, there is no extra payment paid. Further, the registered Sale Deed also certified that no additional stamp duty was levied by the Stamp Duty Valuation Department. In fact, the Sale Deed was registered on 14.05.2019 and the balance payments of Rs.67,00,000/- were paid with the same cheque numbers in March, 2023, which is considered by the CIT(A) in Para 8 of his order. Still there is balance payment of Rs.4,12,500/- which was paid by cheque no.000032 on 16.10.2024, after passing of the order by CIT(A). Thus, the assessee claimed that no extra payment was received by the assessee against the sale transaction, hence, the addition made under section 69B is liable to be deleted.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested to confirm the addition.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of 19 cheque payments (excluding three TDS payments) made to the sellers of the

Regarding the addition made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of the difference in the Guide-Line Value (GLV) and the registered Sale Deed. The AO observed that as per Form 61A uploaded by the SRO, Surat – 8, Rander, the value of the property reported by the SRO is at Rs.1,36,40,000/-. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that the matter may be referred to the DVO for determination of the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.